IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Reverse causality in the R&D – patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence

  • Baraldi, Anna Laura
  • Cantabene, Claudia
  • Perani, Giulio

Starting from the failure of the R&D-patents traditional relationship, when time-series and/or within industry dimensions are included in the empirical analysis, the present work tries to contribute to the empirical literature in two directions. Firstly, it perform a Granger causality test on the theoretical presumption of a reverse patents→R&D link as an explanation of the failure of the traditional relationship. Second, assuming the reverse patents-R&D causality, we test and interpret the lag structure of such a relationship as showing the effective patent life which firms expect in the two Schumpeterian patterns of innovations they belong to. To the light of the effective patent life, we offer a further explanation of innovation persistence which overturns the findings of the existing literature on persistence.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/47684/1/MPRA_paper_47684.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 47684.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 01 May 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:47684
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
  2. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
  3. Griliches, Zvi, 1990. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 1661-1707, December.
  4. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Working papers 527, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  5. Christophe Hurlin & Elena Dumitrescu, 2012. "Testing for Granger Non-causality in Heterogeneous Panels," Working Papers halshs-00224434, HAL.
  6. Beneito, Pilar, 2006. "The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 502-517, May.
  7. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4 Edward Elgar Publishing.
  8. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
  9. James Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, 2007. "An Empirical Look at Software Patents," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 157-189, 03.
  10. Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2002. "The Case Against Intellectual Property," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000003, David K. Levine.
  11. Richard Blundell & Steve Bond, 1995. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," IFS Working Papers W95/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  12. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
  13. Roper, Stephen & Hewitt-Dundas, Nola, 2008. "Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 149-162, February.
  14. Wladimir Raymond & Pierre Mohnen & Franz Palm & Sybrand Schim van der Loeff, 2006. "Persistence of Innovation in Dutch Manufacturing: Is it Spurious?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1681, CESifo Group Munich.
  15. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1995. "Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 47-65, February.
  16. Sims, Christopher A, 1972. "Money, Income, and Causality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 540-52, September.
  17. repec:crs:wpaper:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  18. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
  19. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
  20. Bettina Peters, 2005. "Persistence of Innovation: Stylised Facts and Panel Data Evidence," Development and Comp Systems 0511021, EconWPA.
  21. Thorwarth, Susanne & Kraft, Kornelius & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2008. "The Knowledge Production of 'R' and 'D'," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-046, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  22. Bruno Crépon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation and Productivity : An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Working Papers 98-33, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
  23. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  24. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas & Newey, Whitney & Rosen, Harvey S, 1988. "Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(6), pages 1371-95, November.
  25. Tommy Clausen & Mikko Pohjola & Koson Sapprasert & Bart Verspagen, 2012. "Innovation strategies as a source of persistent innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 553-585, June.
  26. Keld Laursen & Valentina Meliciani, 2002. "The relative importance of international vis-ý-vis national technological spillovers for market share dynamics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 875-894, August.
  27. Sakakibara, Mariko & Branstetter, Lee, 2001. "Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 77-100, Spring.
  28. Christophe Hurlin & Baptiste Venet, 2008. "Financial Development and Growth: A Re-Examination using a Panel Granger Causality Test," Working Papers halshs-00319995, HAL.
  29. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3), pages 783-832.
  30. Emmanuel Duguet & Stéphanie Monjon, 2004. "Is innovation persistent at the firm Level . An econometric examination comparing the propensity score and regression methods," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04075, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  31. Antonelli, Cristiano & Crespi, Francesco & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2012. "Inside innovation persistence: New evidence from Italian micro-data," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 341-353.
  32. Denicolo, Vincenzo, 1996. "Patent Races and Optimal Patent Breadth and Length," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 249-65, September.
  33. Geroski, P. A. & Van Reenen, J. & Walters, C. F., 1997. "How persistently do firms innovate?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-48, March.
  34. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-38, July.
  35. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi & Peretto, Pietro, 1997. "Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialization," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 801-826, October.
  36. Toke Reichstein & Ammon Salter, 2006. "Investigating the sources of process innovation among UK manufacturing firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 653-682, August.
  37. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
  38. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages S71-102, October.
  39. O'DONOGHUE, Ted & SCOTCHMER, Suzanne & THISSE, Jacques-François, . "Patent breadth, patent life, and the pace of technological progress," CORE Discussion Papers RP 1314, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  40. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
  41. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  42. repec:adr:anecst:y:1998:i:49-50:p:11 is not listed on IDEAS
  43. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6159 is not listed on IDEAS
  44. Fulvio Castellacci & Jinghai Zheng, 2010. "Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm-level productivity growth," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 1829-1865, December.
  45. Kingston, William, 2001. "Innovation needs patents reform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 403-423, March.
  46. Cefis, Elena, 2003. "Is there persistence in innovative activities?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 489-515, April.
  47. Cincera, Michele, 1997. "Patents, R&D, and Technological Spillovers at the Firm Level: Some Evidence from Econometric Count Models for Panel Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 265-80, May-June.
  48. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:47684. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.